India-Pakistan relations and Mumbai attack

INDO PAK RELATIONS AFTER MUMBAI ATTACK

Introduction:
The two countries are playing cat and mouse game since their independence. They have fought four wars in their history, first in 1948 soon after independence but in December 1948 a cease fire was accepted by both states although in the year of 1950 Nehru-Liaquat Pact was also signed to safeguard the minorities of both states, second in september1965 and this was followed by the Tashkent Declaration on 10th January 1966, it was a peace agreement between India and Pakistan., third 1971 which paved the way for 1972 Shimla Accord between Bhutto and Indira, and fourth was in 1999 the Kargil war. There are also other incidents excluding these direct confrontation known as war which create tensions between the relations of these two countries like attack on parliament in 2001 and many others.

The major cause of their confrontation is not one, some relates it with the issue of Kashmir and some with religion but the big realistic thought points out the problem of terrorism which is not effecting India only but definitely it is effecting India-Pakistan relations because of some terrorist groups running from Pakistani territory many times India has been accused Pakistan for not taking appropriate actions against these groups. The Pakistani leadership has gambled away its last good will in India by its non-cooperative conduct after the terrorist strikes in November 2008. Only a fundamental change of Islamabad’s course toward India, especially with regard to the existing terrorist networks on Pakistani territory, could lead to a truly constructive new beginning of the bilateral relationship. However, considering the current abysmal state of affairs between their countries, both the elites in India and Pakistan are far away from the well-informed geopolitical view by the erstwhile Mughal dynasty (1527-1857) at the peak of its power toward this region.1 Both countries started time to time established relations through trade, communication, sports, etc. and countries that trade don’t go to war with each other. While this argument has been debunked repeatedly throughout history, many—including the U.S. government—still believe that increasing trade between estranged neighbors and nuclear rivals India and Pakistan will reduce the likelihood of conflict. Till 2008 in spite of some differences, they developed relations as comparison to their history but the Mumbai attack by LeT disrupted all. In this attack around 163 people were died including 15 foreigners and 10 militants.

Mumbai attack and its effect on indo-pak relations:

Bilateral relation changed from sweet to sour when a group of terrorist attacked Mumbai on 26 / 11. 138 Indian nationals and 25 foreigners –nine of them Jewish persons from Israel and the US– were killed when 10 Pakistani nationals belonging to a Pakistani jihadi organization called the Lashkar-e-Toiba (‘Army of the Pure’), who had clandestinely traveled by sea from Karachi without being intercepted by the Indian Navy and Coast Guard, landed in Mumbai, split into four groups and spread death and destruction in the seafront area of Mumbai for about 60 hours from the night of 26 November to the morning of 29 November 2008. Soon after this incident trade and also bilateral dialogue on various political and economic issues were suspended.2 Till 2008 their relation were for better than past but this incident blocked all. The November 2008 attacks have been assessed as an attempt at disrupting the Indian economy, and putting a halt to foreign investment as well as tourism. The Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in his address to the nation on 27 November 2008, mentioned that the “The well-planned and well-orchestrated attacks, probably with external linkages, were intended to create a sense of terror by choosing high-profile targets,” He said that New Delhi would “take up strongly” the use of neighbor’s territory to launch attacks on India.” India blamed the Lashkar-e- Tayba (LeT) for their involvement in the deadly attack on Mumbai and asked the Pakistani civilian government to crash down the terrorist activities that were emanating from Pakistan.3

There are three main issues which are responsible for the instability between these two nations and those are political instability in Pakistan, Kashmir issue, and the menace of terrorism. Pakistan state was created on Islamic notion during independence and the republican countries live more peacefully as explained by Immanuel Kant in his article “perpetual peace” has been proved wrong because of its political structure where public opinion and people’s perception is limited before military rule and fundamentalism(means effect of fundamental groups on people). Instead of ruling the country in a democratic manner, Pakistan has been under military rule for the 3/4th of its existence, even after 65 years of independence Pakistan is failed to establish a democratic structure in its country, and the government in Pakistan is civilian but powerless and “subordinate to military”4 and the ISI is out of its control. Indian security experts said, “Pakistan is a country at war with itself.” The harsh reality is that Pakistan is not equal to India. There is an assumption in India that strikes on the scale of those witnessed in Mumbai, would not have been possible without the involvement or at the very least a tacit consent of the ISI. The terrorist organization Lashkar-e-Toiba (“Army of the Pure”/LeT), founded in 1986, was originally one of the “very own” terror groups of the ISI. Among other things, the organization is transnational in nature, including fighters from Sudan and Jordan within its ranks. The LeT forces are estimated at 20 000 strong in Pakistan and 1 000 in Jammu and Kashmir. India asked to Pakistan to take action against the perpetrators of Mumbai attack and put forward other few demands, first Pakistan denied the involvement of its citizen but later accepted when India provided evidence in the form of interrogation, weapons, candy wrappers, Pakistani Brand Milk Packets, and telephone sets. India even demanded that the Pakistan ISI chief be sent to India for some talking down. The Pakistan government seemed at one point of time ready to concede to this demand, but it later dithered after Army Chief General Ashfaq Kayani put his foot down. He is believed to have told the Pakistan government that “today they have summoned the ISI Chief, tomorrow it will be me”. In response to a post-26/11 resolution of the UN Security Council’s Anti-Terrorism Committee declaring the Jamaatud-ul-Dawa (JUD), the Pakistan-based political wing of the LET, and some of its leaders were involved in terrorism, the Pakistani Government has placed the leaders under house arrest and has claimed to have closed down some of their training camps and taken over the management of the madrasas and medical centers at its headquarters at Muridke, near Lahore. The current strategy is only likely to achieve an increased Indian dependence on other countries to exert pressure on Pakistan. Another side Islamabad fears an “encirclement by India” through New Delhi’s increased engagement in Afghanistan.5 Rehman Malik, interior minister of Pakistan asked India not to threat Pakistan, according to him India was involved in anti-Pakistan activities, especially in the tribal belt along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. And people in Baluchistan area wanted to separate from Pakistan, they wanted the US and India to help them (Alim Maqbool, BCC Correspondent).

India should adopted a kind of coercive diplomacy with Pakistan after Mumbai attack because of public opinion which was “enough is enough” and also the pressure of opposition party BJP which is always aggressive for such incident for Pakistan because of its Hinduism touch in its ideology. But the critics of coercive diplomacy was there, India will not adopt such measures because this strategy could also have consequences for New Delhi: “Any international coalition promoted by India could invite an international intervention on the Kashmir issue.” The Indian defense minister said that India will not go for war with Pakistan but can take strong measures to stop such activities. War is not result in any way and India as emerging power will not go for war another side the nuclear deterrence is there but the big factor in nuclear case is that the Indian nuclear command is in the hands of civilian in nature and in Pakistan it is in the hands of military. The step by step approach and people to people contact as said by “Pakistani foreign minister Heena Rabani Khar and Indian Prime Minister De. Manmohan Sing “can help both nations to build their relations strong. She also visited in India and signed some agreements. US playing a role of mediator but India pay little intentions because from Indian perspective such issues can be solved only bilaterally. For last two years there are again the signs of improvement but still the politicians of two countries are not doing much and there are also some people have built their political or academic careers on the conflict-ridden India-Pakistan relations. Track-I diplomacy is not in scene but track-II is somewhat influential and others like cricket are suspended and no more in practice even the cricket IPL in India not bid Pakistani players.
Conclusion:
It is not an easy task to critically discuss the troubled India- Pakistan relations because lots of emotions are associated with this relationship in both countries against the backdrop of the competing visions of history and how the two countries gained independence in August 1947. Till 2014 being a neighbor they achieved nothing, more than 40 percent border of Pakistan is with India and the trade relations are almost one percent. Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Sing said to Pakistan president Zardhari in shanghai corporation summit that ““I am happy to meet you, but my mandate is to tell you that the territory of Pakistan must not be used for terrorism.” Another side Pakistan many times in the past insisted that no meaningful interaction could take place with India unless it resolves the Kashmir issue. Now the hope is that changing government which should be democratic and powerful and should be able to control its territory then it can bring the spring of change. Both the countries are part of regional and international organizations and happens to meet in the sidelines of their meetings many times, they should get the benefit. Yes the cold and hot wave is always there but relations can be improved even in history both agreed to talk their relations out of conflict but many times disruption comes from the terrorist groups. Both should cooperate in counter terrorism first. In bilateral talk there are many issues if they are willing to resolve then there should be proper negotiation and diplomatic relations. Recently the South Asia University has started functioning in New Delhi in 2010 on a small scale which will expand over time. There will be student and faculty members from Pakistan and they should not face problems like visa etc. even during exchange programs can help in relations better. Following a complete breakdown in relations in the wake of the 2008 Mumbai attacks, India and Pakistan reestablished diplomatic ties in early 2011. Relations have improved rapidly ever since, as both governments engaged in diplomatic dialogue publically and behind the scenes. The greatest signs of progress came in November 2011, when Pakistan announced it would grant Most Favored Nation (MFN) status to India, and in September 2012, when the two countries signed a new visa agreement. Although such policy changes have yet to be implemented, the thaw in relations is historic due to its substance and the speed at which it came to fruition. In sports we can do many things like Rohan Bopana and Asaam ul khurashi duo in tennis. The more we can do is that hope for better relations in future.